X and Y Law Offices, P.C.

100 Cambridge St, Suite 10

Boston, MA 02114
(617) 000-000

December 1, 2011
Mr. Solomon Wideman
U.S. Attorneys Office District of Massachusetts
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Re: Solomon Wideman Potential Claim for Intentional or Reckless Infliction of Emotional
Distress
Dear Mr. Wideman:
I have taken the time to review the testimony that you provided to the Partner at X and Y
Law Offices, P.C. My research below indicates how the courts in Massachusetts would examine
your claim for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress under Massachusetts
law.
In summary, a Massachusetts court would almost certainly find that you have a valid
claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress against Ms. Lauren Lucas. I will
first present to you the facts as the firm understands them, then offer an explanation of the law,
and finally elaborate to you highly detailed advice, given your legal background, on how the
court would likely rule upon the merits of the claim.
Facts: Lauren Lucas was invited over to your household for a family dinner on June 13,
2011. There, you confided in her the long hours, stress, and death threats that were involved
with a recently completed trial involving a high-profile criminal. Despite confiding this
information in her, Lucas took a photograph of you and your family then posted it publicly on
Twitter the next day, connecting your identity with the trial and also revealing the location of
your residence to the public. Additionally, you had to make two requests before she removed the
online posting. Lucas did not express remorse for her actions, and since the photographs
publication, you have been unable to work cooperatively with colleagues, since they believe that
you took sole credit for the work of the group, you have lost place in court, and have considered
taking a leave of absence from the U.S. Attorneys Office. You have also begun to see a
psychiatrist once a week for panic attacks, sweating, lack of sleep, and a racing heart.
Issue: The question here is whether or not you have a valid claim for seeking relief for
intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress (IIED), under the four elements established
by Massachusetts common law. Below are the four elements that a Massachusetts court will
analyze under the rule:
2

1. That the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he
knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely
result of his conduct. 2. That the conduct was extreme and
outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and was
utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 3. That the actions
of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiffs distress. 4. That
the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff were severe and
of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure.
Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140 (1976).
Research and Legal Conclusions: On the first element, the conduct of Lucas met the
necessary intent required, because she would have reasonably known or should have known that
her conduct would cause emotional distress to arise. Massachusetts courts have held that the
intent necessary for the infliction of severe emotional distress is that where an actor knows that
such distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct.
Furthermore, I found the courts have also ruled that necessary intent may result from a
totality of circumstances, rather than solely on isolated incidents. In Boyle v. Wenk., 378
Mass. 592 (1979), for example, the courts have decided that when incidents with the intent to
inflict emotional distress are repeated, the jury may reasonably find sufficient intent for liability
under circumstantial evidence. Based on the facts that you provided to our firm, a jury would
draw reasonable inferences from them and intent would be established under the totality of
circumstances.
With the second element, I found two cases that demonstrate extreme and outrageous
conduct that is analogous to your claim. Given your testimony, we could almost certainly
demonstrate that Lucas conduct was extreme and outrageous. One court found that extreme
and outrageous conduct goes beyond mere insult and annoyance. In another ruling, a court
found that with the knowledge that a party is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, the
continued conduct by the other party would be considered beyond all possible bounds of
decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Similarly, since Lucas knew that you were under stress and experiencing death threats
from the Smith suit, and that her refusal to remove online information connecting you with that
suit, we could reasonably demonstrate to the court that her continued conduct was extreme and
outrageous.
On grounds of the third element, a Massachusetts court would conclude that actions of
Lucas were the cause of your emotional distress. Courts have ruled that in order for intentional
infliction of emotional distress to occur, it must be shown that the actions of the defendant were
the cause of the plaintiffs distress. We must be able to prove that the actions of Lucas were the
cause of your emotional distress in order to show the court that the claim is neither frivolous nor
false. The facts will be able to prove a valid claim, since Lucas took the photograph during
dinner, was made aware of the death threats surrounding the case, and refused to remove the
photograph online upon your first request. A Massachusetts court under the third element for
IIED would conclude that the actions of Lucas were the cause of your emotional distress.
3

Reviewing the fourth element of IIED, a Massachusetts court would conclude that the
emotional distress that you experienced was severe and of a nature that no reasonable man
could be expected to endure. Courts have found that severe emotional distress occurs through
circumstances that would lead an objective, third party to believe that a defendants conduct
would have a traumatic effect on the plaintiffs tranquility and peace of mind. Since Lucas
posted the photograph of you and your family with the GPS location of your family home, the
fact that you have sought medical assistance for various symptoms related to the distress, and
your workplace performance and reputation have suffered as a result, a reasonable person would
find that Lucas conduct resulted in severe emotional distress.
Advice: As mentioned earlier, a Massachusetts court would almost certainly find that you
have a valid claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Furthermore, if you
were to pursue this matter further through our firm, the next step would be to have our firm draft
a complaint against Lucas, which upon your review, we would file with a Massachusetts court.
I hope the advice that I provided was helpful in addressing your case and I would be
happy to discuss this matter with you further. Should you have any questions, you can contact us
at the address and phone number listed above.
Sincerely,

David Turnbull